* * *

"Every nation owes it to itself to seek the establishment of diversification in the pursuits of its people. It is not an abuse of power, but the doing of a positive duty by governments, so to act at each epoch in the progress of a nation as to favor the taking possession of all the branches of industry whose acquisition is authorized in the nature of things."

Such "taking possession," not by monopoly, but by fair competition, is the aim of a protective policy.

John Stuart Mill says in his Political Economy: "The superiority of one country over another in a branch of production often arises from having begun it sooner. There may be no inherent advantage or disadvantage on either side, but only a present superiority of skill and experience. A country which has these to acquire may, in other respects, be better adapted to the production than those earlier in the field; and besides, it is a just. remark, that nothing has a greater tendency to produce improvement in any branch of production than its trial under a new set of conditions. But it cannot be expected that individuals, at their own cost, should introduce a new manufacture, and bear the burthens of carrying it on until the producers have been educated up. to the line of those with whom the processes have become traditional. A PROTECTIVE DUTY, continued for a reasonable time, will sometimes be the least inconvenient mode in which a country can tax itself for the support of such an experiment.

This grants the argument to protection, as a principle, and comes from a free trade writer of eminent ability and character.

To advocate protection for any industry-iron, woolen, wool, etc.—while advocating free trade or tariff for revenue only, on other articles, is not the true way. The interdependence of all industries, and such fair protec-. tion as each and all may need, must be the guide and motive of honest and fair action.

Hon. W. H. Calkins, M. C., of Indiana, well said.

"I consider it to be my duty as a representative of the people to protect the labor of this country. I do not care what the product

of that labor may be, whether it be pig-iron, or clothing, or sugar, or anything else. I want to protect the laborer in Louisiana just as far and as much as I want to protect the laborer in the iron-mill of Pennsylvania or Indiana, and no further. In my judgment that is all there is in this question. The keystone principle upon which this country rests is that labor is noble. Hence, we should put it in the power of the laborer to get the highest wages obtainable, not only for his own benefit, but that he may support and educate his children to become useful members of society. That is the idea of protection."

Protection does not establish monopoly, but breaks down foreign monopoly by encouraging home competition. It does not aim to benefit one class at the cost of another, or to build up one industry at the expense of another, but to benefit all by a just recognition of the interdependence of all industries. It helps domestic commerce and develops our own resources, and so gives solid basis for a healthy foreign commerce. It defends the weak against the strong, cares for those of our own household, aims to advance the welfare of the working people by opening varied employments at fair wages, and elevates the character of our national life.

The American Free Trade League in New York defines its position as follows:

"We believe in the utmost possible freedom for all citizens of the United States in trade as well as in other relations of life; but we recognize that absolute freedom of trade must be limited by the revenue necessities of the government, just as absolute freedom in other respects is necessarily limited by government; and therefore the Free Trade League willingly submits to taxation and duties to meet the government necessities; while it denounces as robbery and tyranny all taxation for the benefit of special classes."

This is free trade and tariff for revenue only, which holds protection as "robbery" to "benefit special classes."

CHAPTER III.

VARIED INDUSTRY A HELP TO BETTER CIVILIZA TION.

To look at the policy of a nation only as it may affect wealth in money and other material things is a partial and fragmentary view, not the highest and therefore incomplete. Such wealth is important, but must be gained and used as a means to a high end-national and personal character. The old way of winning wealth was by warlike robbery; the new way is by supremacy in peaceful industry.

An individual will aim to acquire personal independence; equally does a nation,-a great family of millions. of individuals,—want national independence. The individual, if wise, seeks such occupation as will give scope to his genius and ennoble his character while he wins daily bread and lays by some savings. The nation should so shape its policy as to give scope to the varied genius of its people and help them to a higher life, while they win its wealth by their toil and skill. Governments. personify nations, and should use their power and influence for the best good of all; especially is this the mission and duty of a free government, whose officials are but the chosen and trusted servants of the people.

The wondrous growth of man from savage to civilized life is a development and culture of varied powers of mind and body to meet the many wants and finer tastes. of the more perfect being. The savage has a narrow round of simple occupations, few wants easily supplied,

thoughts that take in his own tribe but go out beyond in dim confusion. Yet in that lower nature are the germs of a higher, a divine intent ever tends to lift all upward, and at last come the larger range of thought, the more complex occupations, the many wants, the demand for beauty and order and perfectness, which make up civilization and true freedom. The industry of the savage is simple, that of the civilized man is complex. The lesson of history is that varied industry is a product and result of civilization, and that those governments which have done most to encourage it have, in that way, helped to lift the life of their people to a higher level. When government encourages the genius of the people it has the strength of the Eternal Laws on its side. Such encouragement is the idea and aim of protection to home industry.

All the most advanced nations, save England, have a protective policy.

No country can profit so much by diversified industry as the United States, for no other country has such varied advantages and natural resources, with such freedom as quickens the ready and fluent genius of the people.

The protective policy of Russia has helped that empire greatly. Her manufactures increased in value 170 per cent. from 1867 to 1879, reaching near $400,000,000 and employing 750,000,000 workmen. But the shadow of Czarism-personal and irresponsible despotism-chills or corrupts all. Germany has made great progress since the adoption of her Zollverein; but an imperial government with an immense standing army holds a toiling and crowded multitude in subjection. France has gained better results for her people. The revolution of 1789 took the lands, held under the old regime by church and

state, from the monk and the noblemen for her farmers to hold and till, and this gave new impetus to the skill of her artisans, which the government has wisely encouraged and protected. But France is just entering on an effort for popular government, and has emerged but yesterday from Napoleonic and Bourbon rule and from the waste of war. All these are protective nations, and such

are their drawbacks.

England is trying a new experiment,—a professed free trade policy. Already her supremacy is slowly waning. But she has heavy foreign investments, a trade over every sea, built up under her Navigation Laws (now repealed) and by mail contracts and greater than that of any other nation, immense manufactures, profits from funds abroad and from foreign freights and exchanges of money estimated at from $500,000,000 to $650,000,000 yearly, and manages all with a persistent vigor worthy of admiring respect, differ as we may from a leading feature of her policy. Her trouble and weakness is an island territory too narrow to give scope for the best diversified industry. Her population must be too largely manufacturing, and that dwarfs and cramps the life of the workmen. Her farms cannot feed her factories; she cannot be selfdependent, but must reach out with unrelenting grasp for the world's trade, and for raw material to manufacture. Our cotton she is compelled to have. If it fails a fatal calamity smites her. We are under no such dire necessity of selling it, for we can work it up. Yet we send far the largest share to England as a matter of choice and profit. Doubtless we shall send large future supplies, but great mills, not only in Lowell but in Southern towns, will consume more at home.

The "manifest destiny" of this country is not to be